(no subject)

[brightlywoven]

 Further to my post earlier in the week about the marginalisation of women's sexuality, I was depressed to read this:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/wifely-duties-spark-a-firestorm-20090401-9jpj.html

Bettina Ardnt is, granted, a woman-hating publicity seeker, who gets press mileage from sympathising with 'the poor men' who have been so horribly damaged by feminism, but this just stinks. 

"But built into that was also this assumption that you had to have desire in order to feel aroused, and therefore if you don’t have desire, you can’t proceed. And I’m arguing if the put the canoe in the water and start paddling, everything will be alright, provided the woman is receptive to that, provided the woman can get her head into the right place and be willing to put the canoe in the water."

Seriously? There's an excellent critique of this here http://bluemilk.wordpress.com/2007/07/28/sex-to-save-the-family/ (y'know if you want more than simple repeating that having sex with someone who doesn't consent to having sex with you is rape. )

Comments

[foreverdirt.livejournal.com]

Since my mature, considered response to her article would probably be to scream loudly and punch a wall, instead I'll just say that I like that her metaphor can be extended to describe anal rape as being up shit creek without a paddle.

[osymandias.livejournal.com]

...

*splurt*

...

[osymandias.livejournal.com]

(I'm honestly not sure if that joke is absolutely terrible, or the only reasonable response one can make to such an absurd proposition. As such, I am left with *splurt*.)

[dr-biscuit.livejournal.com]

I'll go with the latter and agree than a splurt is eloquent response!

[dr-biscuit.livejournal.com]

I was forced to relay this to everyone in the room, which induced a group tea-snortage.

(And really, how often does one discuss anal rape with one's parents-in-law?)
Thank you xxx

[emily-shore.livejournal.com]

Thank you for linking to the critique. It restored my faith in the reasonableness of humanity, just a little.

[dr-biscuit.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's a necessary antidote to the stupid

[shehasathree]

i made the mistake of reading the comments on the article.
i do think that it's important for people like me to study Gender Studies etc and do the kind of research and writing that challenges sexist assumptions about what's normal/natural/ideal for men and women, but reading things like that just make me so...tired.

(disclaimer: already tired. methotrexate day.)

[alitalf.livejournal.com]

Even looking at it a second time I don't read the first article as advocating anything in the same universe as rape. My understanding of it was that it advocated women occasionally consenting to sex in circumstances when they are not all that enthusiastic, and that it has been a long while since last time. Why shouldn't that make sense, assuming it was in the context of a relationship in which each party will do things intended to make the other happy, even if they might have preferred to veg out and watch tv at the time?

Arndt is not suggesting women have sex against their will... is what the article says. Clearly I don't actually know that without reading the whole book, and the second article does deny it, but how do we know which is the more accurate interpretation?

Is your take on this story based on having read the book, or knowing more of the author's views beforehand (I have never heard of her prior to this)?

[dr-biscuit.livejournal.com]

I don't think consent is as binary as that. Bear in mind, the context of this post was the previous one, in which I discussed evidence that women's sexual function and enjoyment is not seen to be an important matter in a number of aspects.

Non-consensual sex is not only violently forced.

I would define rape for the purposes of useful discussion (rather than legal purposes, which is more difficult) as sex where one partner is forced or coerced into an act. Ardnt's arguments are dripping with coercion. The whole premise is that men have needs and their partners have an obligation to fulfill those needs. She specifically eliminates the role for discussion of *why* these couples have mismatched libidos. The solution she offers is to conscientiously decide not to explore this, but say that the responisibility lies in women to change their minds and act differently.

By way of example, an excellent drama/comedy (depending on the scene) Seachange, featured a scene in which the husband was rebuking his depressed wife (who had just discovered that she was adopted and was undergoing something of a crisis) for the length of time it had been since they last had sex. She explained that she did not currently want to but offered "I know you have needs, so you just...take what you want". It was a freely given offer, but he (and the viewers) were rightly disturbed by the implication.

What Ardnt is suggesting is that women do this subverbally, and not expose their partners to the nasty feeling there might be something not right about this.

I'm sure there are couples for whom this might work, but it pre-assumes a degree of self-awareness and mutual respect that is, in my observation, far from universal. So yes, I think that declaring sex a 'wifely duty' is to suggest that genuine consent from women is unnecessary, and that sex without free consent is rape.

[alitalf.livejournal.com]

Ardnt's arguments are dripping with coercion. I didn't read it that way, but accepting coercion as the more correct reading, then I have to agree with you.

My own experience is that Hibernia wouldn't tolerate being treated in ways she thought unreasonable without making her feelings clear, but she does exert herself in various ways to make my life happier. I hope I manage as well for her.

On your previous post, I had intended to asnwer but, at the time, was too tired to string the words together. My comment would have been that even from a purely utilitarian reason, such a non-even handed dealing with the issue is pointless. "OK, you have fixed my sexual dysfunction, but my wife/girlfriend is not interested because of her health problems, so how does it help?"

Personally, I would feel happier if people were treated withy a similar degree of consideration, but at least some of the time, we see competition for insufficent resources. We can't necessarily solve the bigger problems of the world, and sometine I think that prescriptive answers don't help, but it is within all our power at least to attempt to treat the people we actually interact with well.